NationStates Jolt Archive

Alright I'm having little to no success, but I did manage to find out that in the first 100 yards it's traveling over 3000 fps...not bad.

I respect Betsy's power, but I question her ultimate efficiency...she'll put big holes in your wall after putting bigger ones in the intruder :) .

I'll replace my wall before I replace my family. Anywhoo, the first two rounds are nonlethals. I keep a sleeve on the stock w/ nastier stuff if needed. I've traind myself to replace the rounds in a few seconds.

Alright I'm having little to no success, but I did manage to find out that in the first 100 yards it's traveling over 3000 fps...not bad.

Nice. That would go right through someone w/o much of an exit wound. Now if it were 300 the guy would be jelly.

Ok what I'm trying to talk about is the .338 magnum rifle. Elk and bear hunting device. I do apologize for coming to this debate less than prepared, but I have no solid data to defend my statement.

Ok what I'm trying to talk about is the .338 magnum rifle. Elk and bear hunting device. I do apologize for coming to this debate less than prepared, but I have no solid data to defend my statement.

I think with big game it's different. There is so much more to plough through than a human torso.

BTW, Fred Bear took down brown bear with stick bows. Now that's impressive.

That's VERY impressive. Considering how thick bear fur is and all...very impressive.

That's VERY impressive. Considering how thick bear fur is and all...very impressive.

I thought so too.

Not that I'd ever want to be around that kind of train wreck waiting to happen though. I guess he must have had a backup rifle though (I hope).

It begs the question "Why?" though.

It begs the question "Why?" though.

I think he was trying to promote traditional bowhunting or something.

Guy must have had one set of balls though. Put's the guys who have to buy the biggest rifle possible into perspective.

I'll replace my wall before I replace my family. Anywhoo, the first two rounds are nonlethals. I keep a sleeve on the stock w/ nastier stuff if needed. I've traind myself to replace the rounds in a few seconds.

Are you in the US? From what I've heard, having non-lethals in the states is a bad idea. Lawsuits about you purposefully maiming them, etc.

What kind of non-lethals do you have?

Are you in the US? From what I've heard, having non-lethals in the states is a bad idea. Lawsuits about you purposefully maiming them, etc.

What kind of non-lethals do you have?

Yes, I live in the peoples republic of Illinois. As for non-lethals, it depends on where you are and how you use them. Shoot in face...bad. Shoot in chest/abdomen/legs to incapacitate... less chance of injury. W/ this litigious society, even killing the guy could get me sued by his family, I'll risk starting w/ the bare necessity of force and go up from there.

One round is a pepper round. Not a pepper ball but actual cayane(sp?) pepper. It has about a 20' range in a nice 5-10' cone. Yes I tested one. The other round has 3 hard rubber balls.

If that doesn't encourage them to leave/stop, the rounds on the stock go from 3 #4shot shells, deer slug, then a pitbull round (nasty w/ 1/4"slug and 6 00 buch shot).

During this time my wife is calling the police and loading a rifle.

Yes, I live in the peoples republic of Illinois. As for non-lethals, it depends on where you are and how you use them. Shoot in face...bad. Shoot in chest/abdomen/legs to incapacitate... less chance of injury. W/ this litigious society, even killing the guy could get me sued by his family, I'll risk starting w/ the bare necessity of force and go up from there. Yeah, would be nice to know you don't have to splatter anyone coming in your door.

One round is a pepper round. Not a pepper ball but actual cayane(sp?) pepper. It has about a 20' range in a nice 5-10' cone. Yes I tested one. The other round has 3 hard rubber balls.
I'm very interested in the pepper cartridge. Was it effective? Doesn't spray yourself inside?
If that doesn't encourage them to leave/stop, the rounds on the stock go from 3 #4shot shells, deer slug, then a pitbull round (nasty w/ 1/4"slug and 6 00 buch shot).

During this time my wife is calling the police and loading a rifle.
It would be good to know you have a wide range of options, from shells that push them off with pepper spray, to wall-collapsing, universe-ending shells :)

You can :gundge: before you :sniper: :D

Yeah, would be nice to know you don't have to splatter anyone coming in your door.

I'm very interested in the pepper cartridge. Was it effective? Doesn't spray yourself inside?

It would be good to know you have a wide range of options, from shells that push them off with pepper spray, to wall-collapsing, universe-ending shells :)

You can :gundge: before you :sniper: :D

The pepper cartridge works, trust me. It shot straight out about 15-20' in about a 5-10' diameter cone. Don't, however, shoot it into the wind. When I tested one, the wind changed about 2 minutes later and I got a wiff.

I originally got them from here:

http://www.firequest.com/

but am working on making them myself.

Ignoring the hoards of posts:

Spoffin, not a bad idea, but you haven't hit the nail on the head.
Its an idea in progress, I'm more than happy to hear suggestions.

Personally, as a gun owner, I think it should be a pain in the ass to get one. Once you get the special little liscense, you should be able to own whatever the hell you want, next to a grenade launcher.If its too hard to get though, it would encourage people to break the law.

I enjoy shooting an automatic on a firing range -- gives me some sort of thrill I cannot explain.
That's not really a problem to me, there's careful supervision on a firing range, you're not likely to hurt anyone.

I also like my rifles for hunting. Why? Not only the thrill, but deer tastes better and is better for you than cow.Well, I disapprove of that, but this measure isn't gonna stop you hunting

UM, leave Spoffin alone. Just because he's a liberal doesnt mean hes an extremist. Jeez, be nicer... YOU give us conservatives a bad reputation...
Well, I am an extremist, but this is a moderate measure (in my opinion).

Why may he need an AK? Self defense.

That isn't good enough for you? Well, a militia would need one to.

So, the AK is good for the individual and the militia. Shouldn't both sides be pleased with an AK then?
I don't think its very often people are gonna use an AK for self defence, and I think there are even fewer situations where you'd need an AK when a handgun wouldn't work. On the other hand, for the authorities, stopping someone with an AK is a good bit harder than stopping someone with a 9mm or shotgun.

This is all wildly off point, seeing as these restrictions would apply to all weapons equally.

Nope, I didn't watch the special, I just looked up Kerry's voting records....
When you say "looked up", do you mean watched an attack ad or checked out a rightwing blog?

Kerry has voted for almost every anti-gun measure presented during his 20 yrs in the senate.
Crime bills are usually vast and encompass all kinds of legislation, not just guns bills. Someone could conceivably be for some sections and against others, but still vote yea.

I had to pass a hunter's safety course before I cold even think about buying a hunting license. As for the loaded gun by the bedside issue: I grew up on a farm where loaded guns were located by my parent's bed and by each door (so that if a stray dog or something of the sort was terrorizing a prize cow or bull, it could be taken care of in a moment's notice) My parents disciplined me. I learned from an early age the dangers and consequences of guns and if I even thought about touching one of them without permission, I was punished.
America needs more discipline and more personal responsiblility. It's not the gun manufacturers fault for someone's death, it's the fault of the person using the gun.
I just wish everyone would wake up and realize that. :headbang:
Well, thats exactly what the measure I suggested at the start would do, the way I see it.

It comes that way.
But you wouldn't need the grenade launcher mount unless you were planning on having a grenade launcher, right? And if you weren't planning on it, then you wouldn't notice or care if it were gone, would you? So the only people who I can think would care would be those who actually did want a grenade launcher, or the gun manufacturing company, right?

Let's see what the gun control nuts think of this:

I live in an area where firearms outnumber residents. By a lot, like four-to-one, maybe even higher. We haven't had a violent crime in more than thirty years. And that violent crime had nothing to do with firearms, either.

The simple fact is this: Guns DO make for a safe environment. Yeah, we still have crime, but it's traffic violations and druggies, but not burglaries or murders or rapes. Who in their right mind would try to rob or rape someone when you're surrounded by guns?

Also, gun control sometimes doesn't make any sense. My dad used to be in the Army, and he lived in Maryland. Under Maryland law, he couldn't legally own or buy a firearm, despite the fact that he was a member of the Armed Forces! At the same time, some hoodlum who didn't observe laws anyway would break the gun control laws and acquire a firearm illegally in some cash-transaction, unregistered, under-the-table sale, completely invisible to the government. Gun control only works if the bad guys tried to buy guns legally, but not many of them do that, do they? Gun control only makes it harder for honest citizens to buy firearms and does nothing to address the manner in which criminals buy them.Can I venture a guess that you live in a fairly small community? If this is the case, (and do correct me if its not), then I would think that possibly the reasons you don't have crime problems is more to do with that than the large gun ownership.

Your point about the armed services is perfectly fair, that's the exact intent of this suggestion though, to redress the balance.


This question though:Who in their right mind would try to rob or rape someone when you're surrounded by guns?
I think you have an unnecessary term in there. Who in their right mind would try to rob or rape someone at all?

I want to clarify something about my earlier post. In the majority of homes in this area that I've visited, most of those firearms are not locked up, do not have trigger locks, and are easily accessible by anyone in the house. I want to stress that there has not been a violent crime in around thirty years.
Well, I think that's very fortunate, and it is a perfect example of the fact that its not most gun owners who commit crimes, its bad gun owners.

You don't mention accidents though. It may be that there aren't any, cos parents are responsible enough to teach their children that guns aren't to be messed around with.

Now, I understand that some people like guns. I don't know why, but I understand that they do. I'm sure that most people must believe that there is also an issue with regard to the control of guns and who they are given to. So let me ask you what you think of this: before you buy a gun, you need to have proof that you know how to use it. Simply put, you have to pass some kind of firearms proficency test showing that you're able to hit what you're aiming for as opposed to innocent bystanders and a basic safety do's and don'ts so that you don't do something stupid like leave a loaded gun in an unlocked bedside cabinet at a hight that your six year old can reach.

How does this idea sound to everyone?


Like Ideological load of crap.

Make sure you can hit what you are aiming at...
Hmm good Idea but the people who are shooting near inocent people are
a) military personal who should be trained
b) police officers who should be trained
c) security personal who should be trained
d) criminals who are likely trying to hit inocent people

do's and don'ts education...
even those who have grown up with guns make these simple mistakes so no amout of education is going to prevent stupid people from acting acordingly.

There should be and there are laws to try and stop people who shouldn't have guns like convicted violent fellons from getting them, but of course it isn't very likely that the laws will stop such a person from attaining a gun illegally

So in conclusion all you are doing is adding an additional level of buerocracy for all the law abiding citizens to work through

Viewed by Cause of Death

The leading causes of fatal unintentional injuries in 1998 are the same top five since 1970 and they account for 80% of all deaths (74,000 of the 92,200).

Unintentional-Injury Deaths by Event, United States, 1998

Motor vehicle 41,200
Falls 16,600
Poisoning* 8,400
Drowning 4,100
Fires and burns 3,700

Speaking in terms of negligence, guns are less dangerous than swimming pools and public waterways.

In terms of actual cause of death, your are more likely to die seeing your physician than you are being shot.

(National Safety Council)No, see, thats just bad statistics. If there were 100 people killed while driving a car and 110 people killed while walking, that doesn't mean its safer to drive a car. You have to compare the number harmed to the number not harmed in each case, and work out a percentage.

Like Ideological load of crap.

Make sure you can hit what you are aiming at...
Hmm good Idea but the people who are shooting near inocent people are
a) military personal who should be trained
b) police officers who should be trained
c) security personal who should be trained
d) criminals who are likely trying to hit inocent people
How about homeowners, who need to hit an intruder and not send a bullet through the wall into the next bedroom?

And saying that this idea is an "Ideological load of crap" is no less of an insult to me than it is to the people who have spent 19 pages here debating this "load of crap" and have come to some reasonable, rational and moderate solutions.

do's and don'ts education...
even those who have grown up with guns make these simple mistakes so no amout of education is going to prevent stupid people from acting acordingly.

There should be and there are laws to try and stop people who shouldn't have guns like convicted violent fellons from getting them, but of course it isn't very likely that the laws will stop such a person from attaining a gun illegally

So in conclusion all you are doing is adding an additional level of buerocracy for all the law abiding citizens to work through
The problem is, there are a number of people, before they own a gun, who might know everything they know about guns through bad Hollywood movies. In short, are not competant with a gun and are not cogniscient of the risks or how tricky they are to handle.

a strong militia being in the interest of the nation the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Our rights are protected and we can own guns if we want to. fact of the matter is that most of the guns that are used to commit crimes are aquired illegaly anyhow. If you were to ban all guns then the people who abide by the law would not be able to defend themselfs because i dont think that the criminals would hand their guns in.
Completely off topic.

why hand guns? rifles can be much more dangerous if you start banning some types of weapons youll quickly move to banning others. adn what about people who collect guns as a hobby?
If you collect guns as a hobby, then I don't see it as being a big problem, as you're not causing any danger to anyone. The only problem would be if people started to pass themselves off as gun collectors so they could own guns for non-legit purposes.

Again though, I am not advocating any kind of complete gun ban in this thread.

If they were going to hunt though, they'd practice first. It's like bowhunting. You have to learn to use the bow before you can go hunting. You don't just stomp off into the woods and start flinging arrows around.
Exactly. And apply the same to home defence, target shooting, armed forces and everything else.

Look, people, the whole point of this idea was to cut down on accidental deaths related to guns. I'm sick of conservatives saying that people don't die from gun accidents, I've known people who have. I'm also sick of hearing liberals say that we have to ban guns, because the criminals are gonna get them anyway. I think the idea that started this thread is a great one, and I'd vote for it. F*** you conservatives who are trying to say the assault weapons ban was bad, by the way.
Thank you for your support, but please don't flame.

The problem is, there are a number of people, before they own a gun, who might know everything they know about guns through bad Hollywood movies. In short, are not competant with a gun and are not cogniscient of the risks or how tricky they are to handle.

And do you think that such a person that wants to get a gun to be like Joe Blow action hero is really going to take anything from the little more than suger coating class that would be implement.
And I know the arguement to that would be to have a more in depth education class, which I shall counter that NRA is a massive voting block that will squash that or reduce it from the true effectiveness you wish it to be.
You can't force someone to educate themselves

on the issue of not sending a bullet through the wall when shooting an intruder. Have a gun that will be less likely to be lethal after such a transition and use hollow point round that will dispell most of their energy into either the wall or the intruder.

And like I said earlier in the thread. Gun safety should be taught at school.
The only reason I'm nervous about this is cos I don't want it to be seen as the schools promoting guns. I feel the same way about sex and drug education as well. It should be clear that the safest kind of gun/sex/drug practice is to abstain from them altogether, but when that is unavoidable/undesirable, there are some important precautions you should take to make sure you're as safe as possible.

I think that, for the same reasons you don't have sex and drug practicals, school is probably not the appropriate place for practical gun classes.

The issue with guns is not that people don't know how to use them, but that they might abuse them.

And it is my personal belief, based on my own observations, that it IS the people that don't know how to use guns who are against them. My conclusion is that the people who are for tighter gun control are simply afraid of them because they're not accustomed to them. I've grown up fairly more exposed to guns than I would think most people have, and the truth of it is that they're not something to be afraid of. I tend to see firearms as a simple object or a tool, just like a knife or a propane torch. And obviously, just like a knife or a propane torch, they can be abused or accidents can occure if certain safety precautions aren't undertaken.

To the comment about not understanding why people like guns, it's just an issue of interest. Personally, I really enjoy going outside and shooting at targets. It's fun to me, and I'm just interested in guns. The fact is, it's just very short-sighted and self-centered to want to ban guns because YOU'RE uninterested in them. Personally, I don't like soccer one bit. It bores me, I think it's stupid and pointless, but if you enjoy soccer, more power to you! I'm not going to try and take it away from you just because I don't like it.

And do you think that such a person that wants to get a gun to be like Joe Blow action hero is really going to take anything from the little more than suger coating class that would be implement.
And I know the arguement to that would be to have a more in depth education class, which I shall counter that NRA is a massive voting block that will squash that or reduce it from the true effectiveness you wish it to be.
You can't force someone to educate themselves

on the issue of not sending a bullet through the wall when shooting an intruder. Have a gun that will be less likely to be lethal after such a transition and use hollow point round that will dispell most of their energy into either the wall or the intruder.Don't hollow points cause massive damage to tissue and organs in anyone they hit though?

Spoffin -
If you would please elaborate on "tricky to handle".

Don't hollow points cause massive damage to tissue and organs in anyone they hit though?
if someone is envading you home isn't that the point.

The issue with guns is not that people don't know how to use them, but that they might abuse them.
That is one of the issues. However, the often-repeated stat that a gun is more likely to shoot a family member than an intruder is evidence to suggest that, unless there are a very large number of people wishing to kill their own family, there are a lot of accidents with guns in the home.

And it is my personal belief, based on my own observations, that it IS the people that don't know how to use guns who are against them. I think that the same is probably true for drugs, that the people who use them aren't in favour of banning them.

My conclusion is that the people who are for tighter gun control are simply afraid of them because they're not accustomed to them. I've grown up fairly more exposed to guns than I would think most people have, and the truth of it is that they're not something to be afraid of. I tend to see firearms as a simple object or a tool, just like a knife or a propane torch. And obviously, just like a knife or a propane torch, they can be abused or accidents can occure if certain safety precautions aren't undertaken.Which is exactly why I think that people should be taught about safety before they get a gun.
To the comment about not understanding why people like guns, it's just an issue of interest. Personally, I really enjoy going outside and shooting at targets. It's fun to me, and I'm just interested in guns. The fact is, it's just very short-sighted and self-centered to want to ban guns because YOU'RE uninterested in them. Personally, I don't like soccer one bit. It bores me, I think it's stupid and pointless, but if you enjoy soccer, more power to you! I'm not going to try and take it away from you just because I don't like it.Yes, the difference is that far fewer people die from soccer related injuries. Most injuries that do occur happen when the game is being played incorrectly, or the rules are not followed. Seeing as theres no referee for people who use guns, we have to look at other ways of making sure people are safe.

The only reason I'm nervous about this is cos I don't want it to be seen as the schools promoting guns. I feel the same way about sex and drug education as well. It should be clear that the safest kind of gun/sex/drug practice is to abstain from them altogether, but when that is unavoidable/undesirable, there are some important precautions you should take to make sure you're as safe as possible.

I think that, for the same reasons you don't have sex and drug practicals, school is probably not the appropriate place for practical gun classes.

* takes calming breath *

* takes another *

It should be manditory that everyone knows who to safely handle a gun, and what better place is there than a school. Mind you I'm not saying put guns in schools. Everyone should know how to handle, engage the safety, check to see if a gun is loaded and be able to unload it SAFELY.
Beyond that you can't help anyone. If someone want to hurt you with a gun they will try to hurt you with a gun.
Denying someone the knowledge of how to safely handle a firearm is ....
* takes calming breath *
is setting them up to be more vurable to accidents involving firearms.

as far as the drugs and sex issue I will not get into that here even though I starkly disagree with you on those issues as well.

Spoffin -
If you would please elaborate on "tricky to handle".
Oh, I only mean that in real life, guns aren't as simple as they look in the movies. On average, the hero will hit a target a fair distance away with pretty much 100% accuracy, while the villain's or henchmen's shots keep richocheting off the ground.

if someone is envading you home isn't that the point.
Its a bit the point. I think its preferable to stop someone than shred them from the inside out.

Yes, the difference is that far fewer people die from soccer related injuries. Most injuries that do occur happen when the game is being played incorrectly, or the rules are not followed. Seeing as theres no referee for people who use guns, we have to look at other ways of making sure people are safe.

Do you know how many people die in automobile accidents daily? If you're so worried about safety and conservation of life, firearms are NOT the top priority. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they were near the bottom of the list.

Yes, the difference is that far fewer people die from soccer related injuries. Most injuries that do occur happen when the game is being played incorrectly, or the rules are not followed. Seeing as theres no referee for people who use guns, we have to look at other ways of making sure people are safe.

this is off topic but you haven't looked a soccer world wide then have you.
Those Fans (a portion of them ) are NUTS. They start riots in the bleachers when their team gets an unfaverable call. They have kill soccer players for make mistakes on the field that cost their team the game and the tournament.
Soccer is only dangerous when it is play incorrectly... I think not!!!

* takes calming breath *

* takes another *

It should be manditory that everyone knows who to safely handle a gun, and what better place is there than a school. Mind you I'm not saying put guns in schools. Everyone should know how to handle, engage the safety, check to see if a gun is loaded and be able to unload it SAFELY.
Beyond that you can't help anyone. If someone want to hurt you with a gun they will try to hurt you with a gun.
Denying someone the knowledge of how to safely handle a firearm is ....
* takes calming breath *
is setting them up to be more vurable to accidents involving firearms.

as far as the drugs and sex issue I will not get into that here even though I starkly disagree with you on those issues as well.Well, just briefly, you think that people should experience sex and/or drugs in a classroom setting? Or you think that it should be out of schools altogether?

I do think that you should give people knowledge, but practical experience is a bit more questionable.

this is off topic but you haven't looked a soccer world wide then have you.
Those Fans (a portion of them ) are NUTS. They start riots in the bleachers when their team gets an unfaverable call. They have kill soccer players for make mistakes on the field that cost their team the game and the tournament.
Soccer is only dangerous when it is play incorrectly... I think not!!!
These nuts are my countrymen. Britain leads the world in football hooliganism. However, I wasn't referring to the fans, but the game itself and the players.

Do you know how many people die in automobile accidents daily? If you're so worried about safety and conservation of life, firearms are NOT the top priority. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they were near the bottom of the list.
You keep changing the analogy which is rather annoying. However, my basic point it that most things which are permitted can be done safely, or certainly much safer, if you observe the proper precautions. This applies to soccer, guns and driving.

I never said firearms were my top priority, however they are what we're talking about here. Personally, I don't view any decrease in loss of life to be trivial.

Oh, I only mean that in real life, guns aren't as simple as they look in the movies. On average, the hero will hit a target a fair distance away with pretty much 100% accuracy, while the villain's or henchmen's shots keep richocheting off the ground.

Okay I was taking "handle" as to hold and work the different components which is not very difficult (on most firearms) to do
I would have said use or operate or fire or discharge

Its a bit the point. I think its preferable to stop someone than shred them from the inside out.
When it comes to the safty of my child, my wife, and myself the consiquence to the person invading my home and violeting my rights to safty and security are rank below my concern of how much torment Hilter is having in Hell right now.

You keep changing the analogy which is rather annoying. However, my basic point it that most things which are permitted can be done safely, or certainly much safer, if you observe the proper precautions. This applies to soccer, guns and driving.

I never said firearms were my top priority, however they are what we're talking about here. Personally, I don't view any decrease in loss of life to be trivial.

I didn't change any analogy, all I did was point out how silly your reasoning is.

And this may not have occured to you, but things are going to die no matter what you do to prevent it. If you take away guns, cars, knives, and everything else you can think of, people will STILL kill eachother, whether on purpose or by accident. By removing the technology all you're doing is forcing people to resort to the ancient art of beating eachother with rocks and sticks. And if the issue with gun control isn't preservation of life, then I don't understand what the big deal is with keeping them around.

Okay I was taking "handle" as to hold and work the different components which is not very difficult (on most firearms) to do
I would have said use or operate or fire or discharge
Sounds like we just had some terminology mixed up then rather than a fundamental disagreement

When it comes to the safty of my child, my wife, and myself the consiquence to the person invading my home and violeting my rights to safty and security are rank below my concern of how much torment Hilter is having in Hell right now.
Y-es. I don't actually have a good answer to this, suffice to say it makes me uneasy for an indefinable reason.

I didn't change any analogy, all I did was point out how silly your reasoning is.Well, you did change your analogy, and I don't think you did what you thought you did so if you'd care to elaborate that would be helpful.

And this may not have occured to you, but things are going to die no matter what you do to prevent it. If you take away guns, cars, knives, and everything else you can think of, people will STILL kill eachother, whether on purpose or by accident. By removing the technology all you're doing is forcing people to resort to the ancient art of beating eachother with rocks and sticks. And if the issue with gun control isn't preservation of life, then I don't understand what the big deal is with keeping them around.
Well, if I can't stop it all together, I will settle for merely making it a lot harder for humans to kill other humans. Failing to save all the lives is forever going to remain, in my mind, morally greater than failing to save any of the lives.

Well, just briefly, you think that people should experience sex and/or drugs in a classroom setting? Or you think that it should be out of schools altogether?

I do think that you should give people knowledge, but practical experience is a bit more questionable.

having knowledge about the effects and consiquences of drugs and sex outside of wedlock is something all youth should have. I have heard kids say that they can have sex for the first time with out worring about getting the girl pregnant because you get something like a freebe to try it.
Guns on the other had has two issues.
First:- Having the knowledge of doing it and practice doing it are two different things. I know how you are suppose to roast a pig, but if you had be do it right now I would burn it or at least dry it out to jerky.
Second:- some people are afraid of guns and the only way to see their is not harm in handling one safely is doing so. Why these people afraid of guns? because they haven't ever been around one (ignorance), or they have been told to fear them by other (another type of ignorance, and I will hold my comments about people who tell others to fear guns), or they have had a bad experience with guns (understandable, but these people more than any should understand why it is important to know how to safely handle a firearm)

Just looking back over your posts here:

To the comment about not understanding why people like guns, it's just an issue of interest. Personally, I really enjoy going outside and shooting at targets. It's fun to me, and I'm just interested in guns. The fact is, it's just very short-sighted and self-centered to want to ban guns because YOU'RE uninterested in them. Personally, I don't like soccer one bit. It bores me, I think it's stupid and pointless, but if you enjoy soccer, more power to you! I'm not going to try and take it away from you just because I don't like it.

Yes, the difference is that far fewer people die from soccer related injuries. Most injuries that do occur happen when the game is being played incorrectly, or the rules are not followed. Seeing as theres no referee for people who use guns, we have to look at other ways of making sure people are safe.

This is where the change in comparisons occurs

Do you know how many people die in automobile accidents daily? If you're so worried about safety and conservation of life, firearms are NOT the top priority. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they were near the bottom of the list.

What you were trying to do was paint me as a hipocrite, for claiming to be trying to save lives but in fact neglecting a number of more important areas. And you'd be right, if it were the case that I was neglecting these areas. The fact is, I am merely ignoring them for the purposes of this thread, not ignoring them overall.

Y-es. I don't actually have a good answer to this, suffice to say it makes me uneasy for an indefinable reason.
I'd like to hear it.
If you don't want to post it here, then please send me a telogram

I'd like to hear it.
If you don't want to post it here, then please send me a telogram
Nono, its nothing like that, I can't really explain why I don't like it.

There was a case I think last year in this country, of a guy who killed a burgular breaking into his house. I don't remember the exact details, but half the country were saying "bloody good job" and half (the half I belong to) found it terrible that he used this vast and unnecessary level of force (the details involved some kind of unusual circumstances, I think he shot a guy in the back as he was trying to flee or something similar). Now, while I do agree that the safety of your family should come above not harming the intruder, I think that somewhere, some kind of balance has to be struck. Like I said, this isn't the best or most developed of ideas, so don't feel the need to push it too hard.

Nono, its nothing like that, I can't really explain why I don't like it.

There was a case I think last year in this country, of a guy who killed a burgular breaking into his house. I don't remember the exact details, but half the country were saying "bloody good job" and half (the half I belong to) found it terrible that he used this vast and unnecessary level of force (the details involved some kind of unusual circumstances, I think he shot a guy in the back as he was trying to flee or something similar). Now, while I do agree that the safety of your family should come above not harming the intruder, I think that somewhere, some kind of balance has to be struck. Like I said, this isn't the best or most developed of ideas, so don't feel the need to push it too hard.
If you shot the invader as he is trying to flee you are inline for a difficult defence that the shooting was in responce to an iminate threat; however, if the guy is on his way through the door on his way in or coming down the hall way then I see no issue at all.
My personal feeling is that if criminals had to worry (even slightly) that they could be shot for entering someone's home and nothing held against the home owner then crime rates of those types of crimes would drop.
my support:
In Texas when the concealed hand gun law was pasted the following year muggings and other petty streat crimes drop significantly.

Well, if I can't stop it all together, I will settle for merely making it a lot harder for humans to kill other humans. Failing to save all the lives is forever going to remain, in my mind, morally greater than failing to save any of the lives.

I reitterate: PEOPLE ARE GOING TO DIE. You can't stop it. AT ALL. All you can do is force them to find different ways for them to die. And personally, I'd rather be shot to death than beaten over the head with a baseball bat.

anybody hear about the police in flordia using a taser on that 6 year old

Then just carry guns loaded with balsa wood or rubber.
And that cops just an idiot.

Purchasing a firearm is far from applying for a CCW, at which point you have to prove your proficiency with your chosen weapon anyway. And upon proving you have the ability and responsibility to carry a firearm on your person in public you won't worry about hitting innocent bystanders. But a little time at the range never hurts.

Word to the wise. The gun control lobby makes it quite the habbit to lie about firearms death and injury statistics. Take all statements from gun control groups like you would statements from PETA, with not a grain of salt but the entire shaker.

I feel I should post the end all for this arguement, proof that a licenced and trained civilian with a registered pistol can infact, prevent crime and save lives. Here goes.

"You won't hear a story of an Uzi or AK because thugs want unarmed victims, but this may wet your whistle a bit.

A guy and his lady friend are walking down a street after eating a nice steak dinner on Friday night. The area is busy and the only parking available was a nice walk away, not a problem on a beautiful October night.

So the guy, who has had a lot of firearms courses notices a van slowly driving the other direction on the street. The guy notices the deep gurgling sound of the exhaust, but really doesn't think much of it. Then he notices a couple of thugs crossing the street; said GTer is uncomfortable because he and his lady friend seemed to get too much attention from the guys crossing the street. One of those "it just doesn't feel right" type of things.

So the couple continue walking toward the parking garage, when the GTer notices the gurgling sound of that van slowly passing by them. Then the GTer, who regularly uses windows to watch his 6, notices the two thugs that crossed the street coming up behind them. One of the thugs is clearly holding his right hand suspiciously around his belt buckle area. Then said GTer notices the van stopped on the side of the street just ahead and the 2 thugs behind them are getting closer.

GTer tells his lady friend that they are going to duck into any open business they see, but there were not any available. Just as they were coming up on the van, 2 ****-eaters jump out of the van and block the sidewalk. Gter draws his Kimber .45, and moves to engage the thugs 5 feet behind them; the intention was to go to low ready and size up the situation. The two from the van did not appear to be armed and one behind them was already spotted as armed.

So GTer turns and starts to shout at the two thugs on foot when the armed one begins to pull a revolver (SW .38 special). GTer, had the jump because the thugs in the rear did not see him remove his pistol from his daytimer style carry (they had been where alcohol was sold, but he did not drink).

The GTer always, always, always shoots failure drill at the range and trains at least twice a month.

As the BG #1 pulls the pistol, the GTer puts two rounds COM and moves up and puts one in the eye area. There was absolutely no reaction to the chest shots in the BG. The second thug turns to his falling comrade and tries to get his pistol, as GTer puts 2 slugs in his COM and one in the side of the head, GTer didn't know he hit BG #2 with the first 2 rounds. The second thug didn't have time to get turned around to face GTer, and didn't go down from the two to the chest, so said GTer puts one is the side of his head. Both third shots, at 5 feet, were very messy. Luckily for GTer, the second thug did get his hands on the pistol (a fact that would greatly help him in the future). So after the two in the rear were neutralized, GTer turned to check on the two from the van who had started moving his way. When GTer turned to engage them, gun at low ready, they turned and ran to the van got in and the van sped off.

The thugs were linked to other rapes and 2 abductions of similar method, and had sheets as long as your arm. (funny how that wasn't admissable in court) The thugs from the van looked more pissed than scared, and GTer would encounter them later in life. Turns out they were members of the Gangsta Disciples. The Gangsta's don't take lightly to seeing their bro.s being shot down in the street.

The aftermath: Said GTer was charged with manslaughter (the jury was given other options too) and was found not guilty by a jury of his peers. Deliberations took less than 3 hours. Some of the city council PERSONS believed that failure drill represented too much force and GTer should have not made the last shot on the guys. Of course, if he had not made the third shots in the failure drill, the thugs would be alive today. So city council PERSON, pressures the DA and viola, the decision is made to charge him.

The cost to GTer to stay out of prison was $18,000+. That works out to be $3k per shot, or $9k per bad guy.

The situation doesn't often end as well in his dreams, as it did in real time, but he never can quite get it behind him. He carries a strange sense of guilt.

The girlfriend that GTer was trying to protect, broke up with him 3 weeks later. She just never could get over it and could not understand the violent nature of his counterattack. She dumped him, which broke his heart, but she was a very good witness for his defense, and for that he is eternally grateful.

The follow up encounters (turns out during a trial, it isn't hard to get the home address of the defendant) with the Gangsta Disciples were a little better; and no charges were placed in those instances.

Sorry if GTer wasn't armed with and AK, but then they would never have picked us to attack.

The morals of the story: Live with what happened, or with what may have happened- his girlfriend being abducted..... It is better to be tried by 12.... When the SHTF, you fall back on your training in automatic mode. So train well and often.

--

I started out telling it in third person because I really don't want to sound like I am proud of it or bragging and I don't mean to be. I did what I had to do and was vindicated.

Yes it did happen. October 1998. The whole thing exhausted a lot of my savings, and some credit card debt that has since been paid for. The PD Commander on the scene allowed me to go home that night and to come in the following week with a lawyer to make a statement. Everything was clear and obvious to them that night, some officers even commended me.

My initial intentions were to confront them while in the low ready, and hopefully shout them off. As I turned around, the guy had his hand on his gun and was pulling it. I am sure that if he had seen my gun sooner, he would have it pointed at me. And there is the possibility that he drew because he saw mine, but had he stuck his hands up or ran off, I would not have shot. That and their priors convinced the PD that I had acted properly. There were 3 witnesses approaching from behind the van ****-eaters that saw what the van did, and the whole thing. They told the police that night, I had to do it. When they blocked us in, I had no choice but to act.

I was handcuffed and locked in a patrol car for a while, where I puked up that fine steak I had just eaten. Odd feeling when it is over.

The DA prosecuted under political pressure. I did not spend any time in jail, because it was only after the political pressure did the DA decide to prosecute. I surrendered and had bail arranged before we went in. The PD were really nice to me, and they even indicated they thought I was getting a ****ty deal. The Assistant DA that handled the case did not seem to be too interested in getting a conviction. The investigating officers were better witnesses for me than the state. She (assistant DA) allowed my lawyer to seat my dream jury (some code words there) and she let him get some stuff out. At one time my attorney indicated that she wasn't pushing it because of the way she conducted herself.

Girlfriend: Leslie was a nurse and one of those "I could never hurt anyone" types; I am a nurse and we heal...blah blah blah. Another long story. She did not know I was armed that night, or most nights we were together. I found out early that she didn't warm up to guns, so I didn't push it. No huge loss, the timing is what hurt. With all else going on, the last thing I needed was her breaking up. It was not until the trial that I really knew what she would do on the stand. What she did on the stand was enough to settle it for me. I hold no grudges against her, never did. But I won't date another nurse.


As far as the terminal ballistics of the .45. In classes my failure drill from concealed holster generally run in the 1.5 to 2 second area. I doubt any handgun caliber will create adequate results in less than two seconds. I just opened up like I had trained to do. I was going with the 3rd shot, unless the guy was on the ground out of it. When I say there was no reaction to the first two rounds, I meant his head was still where I expected it to be. I never have planned to stop and fully asses the vital signs of an attacker. My plan has always been to do the failure drill if the pumpkin was there and it was. It all happens so fast, you wouldn't believe it.

Since I was innocent, I can still carry.

As for the follow up visits from the Gangstas, I prefer not to get into that right now. Very long ugly stories. On 2 possibly 3 (the 3rd I spotted them and called the police and kept riding around the parking lot, the police came and ran them off so I don't know what their intentions were or if they were there to visit me) different occasions there were young gentlemen waiting for me when I got off work, once was an attempt to kick in my front door while I was home. I highly recommend the Remington 870.

I moved after the initial incident, and the phone company messed up and my 'unlisted' number got listed. So I moved again. A Lt. with the gang squad said that after a while, the membership would turn over to the point they would forget about me. That officer was at my trial and alerted me to potential retribution. There were a Gangstas at my trial. Relatives of the deceased I guess. I currently live in another city with an unlisted number. It has been 4 years, so I hope the follow up visits will cease. Everyday when I step out to get in my vehicle, I stop and scan the parking lot real good. My experiences have served to give me an edge and to keep me on my toes, and to keep me awake at night. Better than the alternative.


If I may offer one piece of advice to anyone who will listen:

If you are ever involved in a shooting, resist all urges to look at the guy after he is down. Move out of the area, and don't ever look at them. You want to remember them as a threat, not as a corpse.

Thanks for letting me get if off my chest."

Yeah.

I don't care how much training you have firing a gun in a public area is never going to safe or bystanders, and if all you have is a CCW training you are likely the last person I want firing in public (time at the range or not)
Even police and military personel that have advanced training to reduce the likely hood that they will hit a bystander still do. It is human nature that in a stressful stiuation that you will narrow your scope of consintration, mean you will likely not see the bystander next to or behind your intended target.

I reitterate: PEOPLE ARE GOING TO DIE. You can't stop it. AT ALL. All you can do is force them to find different ways for them to die. And personally, I'd rather be shot to death than beaten over the head with a baseball bat.
Now that is bollocks. That's like saying everyone dies eventually, from old age or whatnot, so why not just kill everyone earlier?
If someone is determined to kill you, then yes, you'll probably die by one means or another. But if there are 5000 gun deaths a year and 5000 baseball bat deaths a year, and we eliminate all the gun deaths... unless the baseball bat murders go up by over 100%, then still less people will be dying.

Even police and military personel that have advanced training to reduce the likely hood that they will hit a bystander still do.

Police hit bystanders more than civilians, don't make me quote my Gunfacts.pdf. And in all my life I've never seen military personell carrying their sidearm.

edit: you know what? I want all of you gun-grabbers to read this, you'll see the light. Everything in there is quoted from an impartial news source. http://keepandbeararms.com/downloads/GunFacts_v3.2.pdf

Police hit bystanders more than civilians, don't make me quote my Gunfacts.pdf. And in all my life I've never seen military personell carrying their sidearm.
Police hit civilians more because they have to fire the side arms more than civilians do in public areas.
as for the military personal turn on your tv and tune in to CNN MSNBC or any news program for a week and then get back to me

please post a link to said document.

Police hit civilians more because they have to fire the side arms more than civilians do in public areas.
as for the military personal turn on your tv and tune in to CNN MSNBC or any news program for a week and then get back to me

please post a link to said document.

Posted, and clearly I was referencing carrying state-side. http://keepandbeararms.com/downloads/GunFacts_v3.2.pdf again because redundancy is fun!

Then look at footage of the National guard during desaster releif

Well, you did change your analogy, and I don't think you did what you thought you did so if you'd care to elaborate that would be helpful.


Well, if I can't stop it all together, I will settle for merely making it a lot harder for humans to kill other humans. Failing to save all the lives is forever going to remain, in my mind, morally greater than failing to save any of the lives.
There are very few people in the world that really want to die. Allowing guns to be a common household item is actually the quickest way to reduce crime. Look at the crime stats for Vermont vs. population and then do the same with the District of Columbia. In Vermont guns have little to no restriction. In DC except for basically bodyguards they are outlawed. Ever since Britain has completely banned guns for self defense home invasion crimes have been on the rise, as well as rape and street robbery. The murder rate has remained largely unchanged, I think, though I'm not sure about that last.

I don't care how much training you have firing a gun in a public area is never going to safe or bystanders, and if all you have is a CCW training you are likely the last person I want firing in public (time at the range or not)
Even police and military personel that have advanced training to reduce the likely hood that they will hit a bystander still do. It is human nature that in a stressful stiuation that you will narrow your scope of consintration, mean you will likely not see the bystander next to or behind your intended target.
How often are people assaulted in broad daylight in view of many people close to the incident? When cops hit bystanders it's generally something like a bank robbery or a chase. Not in some back alley or at night when few people are around.

Aeopia -
would you clarify your possition please?
At first I thought you were for banning and/or restricting guns, but after skimming through the pdf, I don't know if you against it or somewhere on the fences.

I appologize if this has offended you, but I would just like to know

LOKM

I am most definitely against the restriction and or banning of firearms. Hell I bought a Ruger 10/22 not to long ago, and I love it like a child. If the dirty liberal hippies come for my and my dad's guns they can pry them from my cold dead hands.

When cops hit bystanders it's generally something like a bank robbery or a chase. Not in some back alley or at night when few people are around.
True, but my point is that no matter how much training they have the possiblity that they will hit a bystander remains.
This the leads to my past arguement that the regulat joe with a 10 hour training course is not going to be any less likely to hit a bystander and that is why requiring such training and think it will make everything better is an illogical possition to take.

True, but my point is that no matter how much training they have the possiblity that they will hit a bystander remains.
This the leads to my past arguement that the regulat joe with a 10 hour training course is not going to be any less likely to hit a bystander and that is why requiring such training and think it will make everything better is an illogical possition to take.

Hey, you wanna go back and read that post about a civilian and his .45? Any man with a CCW is to be considered hardcore about his firearms, and they plan to to their damned best as a representative to all other CCW holders, they make it count when it comes down to it. Oh yeah, guns prevent about 2 million potential crimes every year, bloodshed not necessarily included.

There was a case where I live.
Two men are dead after a burglary in progress was interrupted by gunfire at the Lake Community Chapel after an apparent burglary attempt.
Although an attorney for the pastor said that he fired in self-defense, a death certificate shows that one of the men was shot in the back the morning that they broke into the Lake Chapel.
One of two men shot and killed by a pastor could have lived if he had received medical treatment, the state's deputy medical examiner reported.
The pastor was indicted by a grand jury on two counts of manslaughter and two counts of criminally negligent homicide.
Jurors in the trial of the pastor heard a tape in which the defendant seemed to admit wrong doing the morning he shot and killed two burglars in the Lake Community Chapel. (neither one of the two men had any type of weapon on them at the time)
During an interview with the State Troopers the pastor gave conflicting accounts of the incident.(one version was they were rushing at him, the other was they were fleeing from the chaple at the time of the shooting)
the Pastor wanted big gun to scare intruders! :sniper:

The pastor was later aquited of all charges!

what ever happend to "thou shall not kill" :headbang: And I thought men of the cloth were suposed to care about thier fellow man.
Just one more fact, the pastor did have a registered gun

There was a case where I live.
Two men are dead after a burglary in progress was interrupted by gunfire at the Lake Community Chapel after an apparent burglary attempt.
Although an attorney for the pastor said that he fired in self-defense, a death certificate shows that one of the men was shot in the back the morning that they broke into the Lake Chapel.
One of two men shot and killed by a pastor could have lived if he had received medical treatment, the state's deputy medical examiner reported.
The pastor was indicted by a grand jury on two counts of manslaughter and two counts of criminally negligent homicide.
Jurors in the trial of the pastor heard a tape in which the defendant seemed to admit wrong doing the morning he shot and killed two burglars in the Lake Community Chapel. (neither one of the two men had any type of weapon on them at the time)
During an interview with the State Troopers the pastor gave conflicting accounts of the incident.(one version was they were rushing at him, the other was they were fleeing from the chaple at the time of the shooting)
the Pastor wanted big gun to scare intruders! :sniper:

The pastor was later aquited of all charges!

what ever happend to "thou shall not kill" :headbang: And I thought men of the cloth were suposed to care about thier fellow man.
Just one more fact, the pastor did have a registered gun


Well at least he's keeping criminals off the streets.

There are very few people in the world that really want to die. Allowing guns to be a common household item is actually the quickest way to reduce crime. Look at the crime stats for Vermont vs. population and then do the same with the District of Columbia. In Vermont guns have little to no restriction. In DC except for basically bodyguards they are outlawed. Ever since Britain has completely banned guns for self defense home invasion crimes have been on the rise, as well as rape and street robbery. The murder rate has remained largely unchanged, I think, though I'm not sure about that last.
In Britain, we have almost no guns. And we have almost no gun crime. Now, I may be overstating the case to infer a causal relationship between the two, but it does seem to me that having almost no guns and having almost no gun crime might be linked. Its entirely possible that its actually a social thing, an attitude towards guns that is one way in America and another in Britain, but nevertheless, there does seem to be a casual connection between having almost no guns and having almost no gun crime.

I disagree with your statistics on rape, street robbery and home invasion. Whether or not they are above or below the level they were at when guns were less strictly controlled I don't know precisely, but I am quite positive they haven't been steadily increasing. I can tell you that gun control in America has increased since the 70s, and the murder rate has declined. In fact, I can find a whole mass of statistics, each of which will support different viewpoints on gun control and on various different times of crime.

My conclusion from this may seem at odds to my first paragraph, but it is in fact that most likely, the levels of gun control have an indeterminable effect on the level of crime. Sometimes things precede a reduction in gun deaths, sometimes they precede an increase. This leads me to believe that it is the social attitude towards guns, much more than the legal attitude, which will change the gun statistics. I do not believe therefore that there are broad solutions that will work in every country and in every state, at every time and for every people. So, I think we need a little trial and error here. If gun control has not brought a change in the states, then either it hasn't been implemented on a level high enough, or it is altogether useless. Whichever of these are true, gun control does not seem viable as a solution; if it doesn't work then it won't help, if it needs to be taken further, then it'll never get past the political machine. So what do we need? A different attempt at a solution. My proposal has not met with overwhelming rejection, so there is a chance of it being a politically viable solution. As to being useful, I can't say for certain, but logically I believe that it links together.

Well at least he's keeping criminals off the streets.
By sending them to hell?

Quite frankly, I'm not keen on vigilantes, and theres a difference between fire-brand and firearm-ed preachers.

Hey, you wanna go back and read that post about a civilian and his .45? Any man with a CCW is to be considered hardcore about his firearms, and they plan to to their damned best as a representative to all other CCW holders, they make it count when it comes down to it. Oh yeah, guns prevent about 2 million potential crimes every year, bloodshed not necessarily included.
CCWers aren't my problem, in fact, that's the kind of attitude that I want to get from more gun owners.

(this is me desperately trying to hijack my thread back onto course)

Your proposition is a vaild one, it will indeed keep "ganstas" from legally purchasing firearms, you know the ones, they insist upon holding the gun sideways to seem more hardcore. And those that want to fire from the hip and hope for the best. I am a target shooter, decades beyond these two stereotypes in shooting skill.

In Britain, we have almost no guns. And we have almost no gun crime. Now, I may be overstating the case to infer a causal relationship between the two, but it does seem to me that having almost no guns and having almost no gun crime might be linked. Its entirely possible that its actually a social thing, an attitude towards guns that is one way in America and another in Britain, but nevertheless, there does seem to be a casual connection between having almost no guns and having almost no gun crime.

I disagree with your statistics on rape, street robbery and home invasion. Whether or not they are above or below the level they were at when guns were less strictly controlled I don't know precisely, but I am quite positive they haven't been steadily increasing. I can tell you that gun control in America has increased since the 70s, and the murder rate has declined. In fact, I can find a whole mass of statistics, each of which will support different viewpoints on gun control and on various different times of crime.

My conclusion from this may seem at odds to my first paragraph, but it is in fact that most likely, the levels of gun control have an indeterminable effect on the level of crime. Sometimes things precede a reduction in gun deaths, sometimes they precede an increase. This leads me to believe that it is the social attitude towards guns, much more than the legal attitude, which will change the gun statistics. I do not believe therefore that there are broad solutions that will work in every country and in every state, at every time and for every people. So, I think we need a little trial and error here. If gun control has not brought a change in the states, then either it hasn't been implemented on a level high enough, or it is altogether useless. Whichever of these are true, gun control does not seem viable as a solution; if it doesn't work then it won't help, if it needs to be taken further, then it'll never get past the political machine. So what do we need? A different attempt at a solution. My proposal has not met with overwhelming rejection, so there is a chance of it being a politically viable solution. As to being useful, I can't say for certain, but logically I believe that it links together.


Hey Spoffin, how's it goin'?

England and Wales

Both Conservative and Labour governments have introduced restrictive
firearms laws over the past 20 years; all handguns were banned in 1997.

Yet in the 1990s alone, the homicide rate jumped 50 percent, going
from 10 per million in 1990 to 15 per million in 2000. While not yet
as high as the US, in 2002 gun crime in England and Wales increased by
35 percent. This is the fourth consecutive year that gun crime has
increased.

Police statistics show that violent crime in general has increased
since the late 1980s and since 1996 has been more serious than in the
United States.


http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=nr&id=570

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/BritainToyGunsWSJE.html

also:

England -- Licenses have been required for rifles and handguns since 1920, and for shotguns since 1967. A decade ago semi-automatic and pump-action center-fire rifles, and all handguns except single- shot .22s, were prohibited. The .22s were banned in 1997. Shotguns must be registered and semi-automatic shotguns that can hold more than two shells must be licensed. Despite a near ban on private ownership of firearms, "English crime rates as measured in both victim surveys and police statistics have all risen since 1981. . . . In 1995 the English robbery rate was 1.4 times higher than America`s. . . . the English assault rate was more than double America`s." All told, "Whether measured by surveys of crime victims or by police statistics, serious crime rates are not generally higher in the United States than England." (Bureau of Justice Statistics, "Crime and Justice in the United States and in England and in Wales, 1981-1996," 10/98.) An English doctor is suspected of murdering more than 200 people, many times the number killed in the gun-related crimes used to justify the most recent restrictions.

"A June 2000 CBS News report proclaimed Great Britain `one of the most violent urban societies in the Western world.` Declared Dan Rather: `This summer, thousands of Americans will travel to Britain expecting a civilized island free from crime and ugliness. . . (But now) the U.K. has a crime problem . . . worse than ours.`" (David Kopel, Paul Gallant, and Joanne Eisen, "Britain: From Bad to Worse," America`s First Freedom, 3/01, p. 26.) Street crime increased 47% between 1999 and 2000 (John Steele, "Crime on streets of London doubles," London Daily Telegraph , Feb. 29, 2000.) See also www.2ndlawlib.org/journals/okslip.html, www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment071800c.html, and www.nraila.org/research/19990716-BillofRightsCivilRights-030.html.

LOL, Murder!

Its entirely possible that its actually a social thing, an attitude towards guns that is one way in America and another in Britain, but nevertheless, there does seem to be a casual connection between having almost no guns and having almost no gun crime.

Don't think that's the answer.

New Zealand has TONS of guns, yet almost no gun crime. In Switzerland, every man is required to have a military rifle at home. There are places in the states that require you to own a gun.

Guns in Britain are banned not because of rising gun crime figures, but because we have had two seperate incidents where people with licensed firearms went "Postal", 1 in a school, 1 in a town. After that we decided that the state would not and should not sanction firearms (with the exception of shotguns, for "countryside" pursuits and to control wildlife).

The attitude in the country is that guns are not part of our way of life, and although gun crime might be rising the answer is simply not more guns. Possibly employing more police to catch the people with guns, seems like a more sane solution.

But then we're just a bunch of dirty hippy liberals so what would we know...

Now, I understand that some people like guns. I don't know why, but I understand that they do. I'm sure that most people must believe that there is also an issue with regard to the control of guns and who they are given to. So let me ask you what you think of this: before you buy a gun, you need to have proof that you know how to use it. Simply put, you have to pass some kind of firearms proficency test showing that you're able to hit what you're aiming for as opposed to innocent bystanders and a basic safety do's and don'ts so that you don't do something stupid like leave a loaded gun in an unlocked bedside cabinet at a hight that your six year old can reach.

How does this idea sound to everyone?

Lots of irrelevant responses. Simple analysis. The US Constitution not only allows, but requires ownership of weapons by individuals, and state militias, to prevent federal government control. There is no law against NOT owning a weapon, but there is a law ALLOWING ownership. Irresponsible use is OUTLAWED. In countries that outlaw weapons/guns, only OUTLAWS HAVE GUNS. The Arab countries are a good example.

police statistics have all risen since 1981. . . . In 1995 the English robbery rate was 1.4 times higher than America

The gap between rich and poor also grew significantly, so did unemployment. Sorry to be all statistical about this but the crime rate is more closely tied to economic indicators than the amount of guns in a country. Also ways crime was recorded changed significantly in those dates, incorporating things such as domestic abuse and so on..

An English doctor is suspected of murdering more than 200 people, many times the number killed in the gun-related crimes used to justify the most recent restrictions.

Don't see how this fits in with your argument at all. Are you suggesting that we take firearms to the surgery with us?

Yes, the BMA (Medical authority) needs to get its house in order, but we are learning lessons from the Shipman tragedy.

I'm not saying Britian is a utopia, but I think trying to pin the rise in crime to a lack of guns is ridiculous.

You morons(The ones who say this goes against the Constitution) this does not ban guns. IT IS SHOWING IF YOU HAVE ENOUGH BRAINS TO USE A GUN. Are you saying every idiot should be allowed to have a gun? No,I hope not. Only people who can use one should.

An English doctor is suspected of murdering more than 200 people, many times the number killed in the gun-related crimes used to justify the most recent restrictions.
If the murder rate is 10 per million, then multiply that by 60 (approx population of the UK is 60 million) and you get 600 murders. Now add in Shipman's 200 victims and it goes up to 800. Thats a jump of 33%. One man alone is responsible for more than half of the overall increase in the murder rate. Quite frankly, I think that Harold Shipman can be taken as an exception, a sudden jump, rather than a trend that will continue. So, any murder stats for the UK in recent years are likely to be a bit out I feel.

Given the tiny amount of guns that were in existance even before they were banned, I find it highly unlikely that they were actually perceived as a threat and therefore acted as a deterrant.

I really don't get the people who are pro-guns. First off, I don't live in the USA, and I don't give shit about that self-rightous constitution of yours, written a hundred years ago by a bunch of old men. Now, what are guns for? That's right, killing people. There is no way to get around that. "But we have to protect ourselves" you say. But pointing a gun at an armed robber only provokes them. If you are unarmed, they are less inclined to hurt you. Also, prohibiting guns altogether will decrease the number of armed bad guys. Americans are so damn paranoid.

I really don't get the people who are pro-guns. First off, I don't live in the USA, and I don't give shit about that self-rightous constitution of yours, written a hundred years ago by a bunch of old men. Now, what are guns for? That's right, killing people. There is no way to get around that. "But we have to protect ourselves" you say. But pointing a gun at an armed robber only provokes them. If you are unarmed, they are less inclined to hurt you. Also, prohibiting guns altogether will decrease the number of armed bad guys. Americans are so damn paranoid.

"Don't get the people" shows a lack of critical thinking ability.

"shit", "self-righteous".. Good way to start a debate. Very mature.

"One hundred years ago".. Pick up a book, it was over 200.

"bunch of old men"..Age discrimination, sexism.

"killing people"... and hunting and target shooting and...

So they'll hurt you if you're armed but not if you're unarmed. Go and tell a rapist that.

"Prohibiting guns will decrease ..." because criminals follow the laws al the time.

"Don't get the people" shows a lack of critical thinking ability.

It does not, it is a way of expression, please forgive me.

"shit", "self-righteous".. Good way to start a debate. Very mature.

My point was that just because the law says it, it isn't neccesarily good.

"One hundred years ago".. Pick up a book, it was over 200.

So? This goes along with the last one, the constitution is aged, you don't gaing anything by correcting me on this one.

"bunch of old men"..Age discrimination, sexism.

No really, it WAS a bunch of old men. Ok, maybe a few younger men too, but still men.

"killing people"... and hunting and target shooting and...

Hunting is killing. And if you want to shoot at target, get an air rifle, soft-airgun or a bow.

So they'll hurt you if you're armed but not if you're unarmed. Go and tell a rapist that.

Good point, I was actually thinking of people breaking into your house. Is it allowed to carry a gun in public areas in the USA? If it isn't it doesn't protect you from rapists. (Ok, some rapists break and enter, but not most.)

"Prohibiting guns will decrease ..." because criminals follow the laws al the time.

Of course not, but as I said, there is no need to provoke them.

Is it allowed to carry a gun in public areas in the USA?
Yes I can go get my gun right now and walk down main street with it if I so pleased.
Concealed firearms are a bit of a diffrent story, and is dependant on which state you are in.

I really don't get the people who are pro-guns. First off, I don't live in the USA, and I don't give shit about that self-rightous constitution of yours, written a hundred years ago by a bunch of old men. Now, what are guns for? That's right, killing people. There is no way to get around that. "But we have to protect ourselves" you say. But pointing a gun at an armed robber only provokes them. If you are unarmed, they are less inclined to hurt you. Also, prohibiting guns altogether will decrease the number of armed bad guys. Americans are so damn paranoid.

So if you are in bed and hear someone breaking into your home or already in it, you are just going to lay there and hope they don't do anything to harm you? You can not be serious.

So if you are in bed and hear someone breaking into your home or already in it, you are just going to lay there and hope they don't do anything to harm you? You can not be serious.

I would probably shout at them, and your general burglar would probably just slip away in that case. I would never in my life point a gun at a living being.

Yes I can go get my gun right now and walk down main street with it if I so pleased.
Concealed firearms are a bit of a diffrent story, and is dependant on which state you are in.

Not in Illinois you can't. Most states still require a permit for carry or concealed carry. There are a few with "shall issue" statutes but they are in the minority.

You morons(The ones who say this goes against the Constitution) this does not ban guns. IT IS SHOWING IF YOU HAVE ENOUGH BRAINS TO USE A GUN. Are you saying every idiot should be allowed to have a gun? No,I hope not. Only people who can use one should.

And in a perfect world this would be great, but the only type of course or training you would be able to require by passing legislation wouldn't be much.
What are the current length of classes for Conceal firearm permits 10-20 hours.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can make it drink.
You can put someone in a class room, but you can't make them learn. Those who want to be 'gansta' will just sit there and do just enough to get their permit, and then do what ever the hell they wanted anyways. Or they get a friend to do and 'borrow' the weapon from that person. Or here is a noval idea, they won't give a crap about the law and do what they want anyways.

I would probably shout at them, and your general burglar would probably just slip away in that case. I would never in my life point a gun at a living being.

OMG, that is the funniest thing I've heard in weeks. You keep believing that. I really hope you never have to test your hypothesis.

Not in Illinois you can't. Most states still require a permit for carry or concealed carry. There are a few with "shall issue" statutes but they are in the minority.
and how difficult would it be for the average person to go and get a carrying permit. What limits does the status about carrying a firearm have?

Note I'm not talking about concealed. I'm talking about carrying a rifle at my shoulder or a shot gun broken over my arm or shoulder in plain view.

I favor requiring a gun license, just like you need a driver's license.

That said:
* All 50 states will have the same licensing requirements. That means that Massachusettes and New Hampshire will have to agree on how to license.
* States will still have some latitude. For example, you can get a driver's license at 14 in New Mexico.
* Once I have this license, I can carry my concealed handgun in all 50 states.
* There will be no ban on any specific weapons, just licensing endorsements. As drivers can get CDL, motorcycle, etc, gun licenses will likewise have full automatic and the like.
* Guns will be registered with the states, just like cars are.

...I think this is a fair compromise, really. IMHO, neither side will ever win the gun debate without giving a little.

It does not, it is a way of expression, please forgive me.



My point was that just because the law says it, it isn't neccesarily good.



So? This goes along with the last one, the constitution is aged, you don't gaing anything by correcting me on this one.



No really, it WAS a bunch of old men. Ok, maybe a few younger men too, but still men.



Hunting is killing. And if you want to shoot at target, get an air rifle, soft-airgun or a bow.



Good point, I was actually thinking of people breaking into your house. Is it allowed to carry a gun in public areas in the USA? If it isn't it doesn't protect you from rapists. (Ok, some rapists break and enter, but not most.)



Of course not, but as I said, there is no need to provoke them.

My point was that you don't even have your basic facts in order.

So because the document our country was founded on was written by "a bunch of old men" and is "aged" the rights defined in it are no longer valid?

Do you eat meat? If you don't, fine, but if you do, how do you think that meat got on your table?

Since I live in America, I will use what I wish for targets.

and how difficult would it be for the average person to go and get a carrying permit. What limits does the status about carrying a firearm have?

Note I'm not talking about concealed. I'm talking about carrying a rifle at my shoulder or a shot gun broken over my arm or shoulder in plain view.

Once again it depends on the state. Some states you can walk down main street w/o a permit. Some you just go and apply.. etc etc.

Here's a good place to start looking for specifics:

http://www.nraila.org/GunLaws/Default.aspx

I favor requiring a gun license, just like you need a driver's license.

That said:
* All 50 states will have the same licensing requirements. That means that Massachusettes and New Hampshire will have to agree on how to license.
* States will still have some latitude. For example, you can get a driver's license at 14 in New Mexico.
* Once I have this license, I can carry my concealed handgun in all 50 states.
* There will be no ban on any specific weapons, just licensing endorsements. As drivers can get CDL, motorcycle, etc, gun licenses will likewise have full automatic and the like.
* Guns will be registered with the states, just like cars are.

...I think this is a fair compromise, really. IMHO, neither side will ever win the gun debate without giving a little.


I would accept all of that except for the registration part. Registration Lists have to often been a precurser to confiscation to make it comfortable.

I favor requiring a gun license, just like you need a driver's license.

That said:
* All 50 states will have the same licensing requirements. That means that Massachusettes and New Hampshire will have to agree on how to license.
* States will still have some latitude. For example, you can get a driver's license at 14 in New Mexico.
* Once I have this license, I can carry my concealed handgun in all 50 states.
* There will be no ban on any specific weapons, just licensing endorsements. As drivers can get CDL, motorcycle, etc, gun licenses will likewise have full automatic and the like.
* Guns will be registered with the states, just like cars are.

...I think this is a fair compromise, really. IMHO, neither side will ever win the gun debate without giving a little.

Okay...
First:- your first two points conflict
Second:- since licencig is a state issue the federal goverment can make a states have the same licencing laws
Thirst:- your thirds point conflicts with my second point
Fourth:- most state (I would even on a limb to say all) do register guns or atleast require the registration of certain types.
Fifth:- Licensing of a particular types like different types of drivers licenses still fails the point of gun control/regulation legislation. I won't keep the wrong people from obtaining a weapon they can't legal have if the want

Once again it depends on the state. Some states you can walk down main street w/o a permit. Some you just go and apply.. etc etc.

And how many states do you know that do more than a quick check that you are not a convicted violent fellon, before giving you a permit to carry an unconcealed riffle in public?

And how many states do you know that do more than a quick check that you are not a convicted violent fellon, before giving you a permit to carry an unconcealed riffle in public?

45.

riiiiiiiiigght

The point is that if I wanted to I could walk down the street with my riffle, shot gun, or really for that matter a pistol in a holster in plain view because that is my right as US citizen

So because the document our country was founded on was written by "a bunch of old men" and is "aged" the rights defined in it are no longer valid?

Do you eat meat? If you don't, fine, but if you do, how do you think that meat got on your table?


That's one problem I have with the defense of guns, people seem to think that because it was written by our "forefathers", it shouldn't be changed. Our forefathers kept slaves and also thought that only white, upper-class men should vote, so it's not like they were the vessels through which god spoke or anything.

And secondly, are you implying that meat gets on our table becase people shoot the meat? I think for the most part, if not entirely, animals are killed in slaughterhouses, where they patiently wait outside until it's their time to go inside and get killed. But I'm not sure if that's what you're implying, I don't mean to attack you.

And all that said I don't think we should get rid of all guns in America, at least. I live in the south in a fairly poverty-stricken area and I know lots of people who eat things that they've shot and killed. I don't hunt and I don't own a gun, but that's a lot of free food for someone who can't afford to get it at the market. Assault rifles and things, though, are pretty excessive.

That's one problem I have with the defense of guns, people seem to think that because it was written by our "forefathers", it shouldn't be changed. Our forefathers kept slaves and also thought that only white, upper-class men should vote, so it's not like they were the vessels through which god spoke or anything.
And that is why the consitution can and has been changed

And secondly, are you implying that meat gets on our table becase people shoot the meat? I think for the most part, if not entirely, animals are killed in slaughterhouses, where they patiently wait outside until it's their time to go inside and get killed. But I'm not sure if that's what you're implying, I don't mean to attack you.
Animals at slaughter house used to be/are shot with a shot gun type insturment at the base of the skull or hit with a hammer or hamme and spike to the base of the skull

And that is why the consitution can and has been changed

Indeed, that's why I say the argument that our forefathers' view on guns should dictate ours is irrelvant.

Animals at slaughter house used to be/are shot with a shot gun type insturment at the base of the skull or hit with a hammer or hamme and spike to the base of the skull

Yeah I was going to mention that but didn't think it had much importance in the argument. If I remember correctly, its large gun-like device that drives a big nail into the head of the animal, then the nail receeds back into the gun. But I might be wrong, or that might just be one slaughterhouse where I got the info.

Thanks for your response though

That's one problem I have with the defense of guns, people seem to think that because it was written by our "forefathers", it shouldn't be changed. Our forefathers kept slaves and also thought that only white, upper-class men should vote, so it's not like they were the vessels through which god spoke or anything.

And secondly, are you implying that meat gets on our table becase people shoot the meat? I think for the most part, if not entirely, animals are killed in slaughterhouses, where they patiently wait outside until it's their time to go inside and get killed. But I'm not sure if that's what you're implying, I don't mean to attack you.

And all that said I don't think we should get rid of all guns in America, at least. I live in the south in a fairly poverty-stricken area and I know lots of people who eat things that they've shot and killed. I don't hunt and I don't own a gun, but that's a lot of free food for someone who can't afford to get it at the market. Assault rifles and things, though, are pretty excessive.


Slavery and non-full suffrage were changed later to ADD more rights to the people. The only part changed to remove rights was prohibition and that was changed again shortly after.

I never meant to imply that slaughterhouses shoot the animals w/ guns. I was expressing the point that the animals were killed.

I don't hunt but own several guns. Assault rifles are fully automatic weapons that have been regulated since 1934. You can own one but need a Class III dealers license. Not easy/cheap to get. The latest rounds of banning included semi-auto weapons that LOOKED like military weapons w/ the made up nomenclature of "assault weapons" They also attempted to add an ammunition ban that would have prevented quite a few of the individuals you mentioned from putting food on their table.

Indeed, that's why I say the argument that our forefathers' view on guns should dictate ours is irrelvant.





I disagree. Many arguements made in favor of banning guns are based on the suppositions that they(the forefathers) meant one thing or another. While times do change, it is the job of the SCOTUS to interpret the meaning of the Constitution and why it was written that that document can be adjusted (not easily though or on a whim) to fit the needs of the times.

It is the basis for the organization of the American society and the original intentions of the framers should be taken into consideration before changes are made. A house w/o a foundation has no support.

i don't know if someone has already said this, but i'll say it anyway.
in Britain it is virtually impossible (legally) for any old person to get a gun and i do believe that pistols, semi-automatic and automatic weapons are illegal. Farmers do have shot guns, however under very strict licensing.
now i'm not saying there aren't any guns at all, but if they're not so easily available, not so many criminals will have them and therefore normal people don't need to protect themselves from gun-toting maniacs...

Indeed, that's why I say the argument that our forefathers' view on guns should dictate ours is irrelvant.
But is a majority of citizens agree or accept their view then it is still relivant and doesn't need to be changed.
change comes from a mandate from the citizens, and a mandate is a large LARGE majortiy

Yeah I was going to mention that but didn't think it had much importance in the argument. If I remember correctly, its large gun-like device that drives a big nail into the head of the animal, then the nail receeds back into the gun. But I might be wrong, or that might just be one slaughterhouse where I got the info.
The receeding back into the gun advance was likely to make it more effiecent (not needing to reload, and cheapers on amunition) and to not have to hunt and find a projectile in possible meat for processing.
This part has gone way off topic so I suggest that the slaughter house part be started in another thread if you wish to continue it.

i don't know if someone has already said this, but i'll say it anyway.
in Britain it is virtually impossible (legally) for any old person to get a gun. Farmers do have shot guns, however under very strict licensing.
now i'm not saying there aren't any guns at all, but if they're not so easily available, not so many criminals will have them and therefore normal people don't need to protect themselves from gun-toting maniacs...

And Englands crime rate keeps going up why?

If there were some magical way to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, I might agree w/ you. However, banning them only keeps guns out of the hands of LAC's and other criminals now have an incentive to provide an even larger black- market for guns.

i don't know if someone has already said this, but i'll say it anyway.
in Britain it is virtually impossible (legally) for any old person to get a gun and i do believe that pistols, semi-automatic and automatic weapons are illegal. Farmers do have shot guns, however under very strict licensing.
now i'm not saying there aren't any guns at all, but if they're not so easily available, not so many criminals will have them and therefore normal people don't need to protect themselves from gun-toting maniacs...

I shall ask you this.
If someone really wanted to get a gun and use it in Britian could they?

Slavery and non-full suffrage were changed later to ADD more rights to the people. The only part changed to remove rights was prohibition and that was changed again shortly after.

The only thing I'm saying about the defense that it's been in the consitution since the nation started is that other things were in there as well that were inhuman and cruel. Some people seem to think that these guys had all the answers and changing the constitution to remove guns would be unpatriotic, which I think is a load. But, like I said, I'm not for removing all guns, I just hate that argument.


I don't hunt but own several guns. Assault rifles are fully automatic weapons that have been regulated since 1934. You can own one but need a Class III dealers license. Not easy/cheap to get. The latest rounds of banning included semi-auto weapons that LOOKED like military weapons w/ the made up nomenclature of "assault weapons" They also attempted to add an ammunition ban that would have prevented quite a few of the individuals you mentioned from putting food on their table.

I understand that many people have an interest in guns, like yourself, I just think that many of these extremely dangerous weapons are ending up in the wrong hands.

Another point I'd like to bring up in your defense is that there are already so many guns, it would be impossible to rid the nation of all of them. The law-abiding citizens would remove the guns and the criminals would have them, and of course there's always Mexico where guns could be brought in. I'm an extremely liberal guy and in a fantasy world it would be great if we didn't have guns, but looking at it realistically, I don't think there's anyway to rid ourselves of them.

And blah blah blah, I've babbled and babbled endlessly now, I'm going to give this political banter a rest

And Englands crime rate keeps going up why?

If there were some magical way to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, I might agree w/ you. However, banning them only keeps guns out of the hands of LAC's and other criminals now have an incentive to provide an even larger black- market for guns.

i know its impossible to completely stop any guns coming through, but gun crime is far less of a problem than other crimes. I know it is actually rising at the moment, but i still feel a lot safer than i would in america for example.

I shall ask you this.
If someone really wanted to get a gun and use it in Britian could they?

yes they could, although you would have to get mixed up in criminal organisations and such like to do so

[FONT=Verdana]guns are bad look its horrible :sniper: you
wont just go past this would you[SIZE=6]

The only thing I'm saying about the defense that it's been in the consitution since the nation started is that other things were in there as well that were inhuman and cruel.
how is the right to arms inhuman and cruel?
I know you don't like the idea that the rights to arms in the constitution is only accepted because it has been there since the beginning, but it hasn't been removed, because there has never been a reason to and the Constitution was drafted ( I say drafted because it wasn't set in stone) so that whimsical or change for the sake of change would be near impossible to effect. If change is needed and desired by the citizens it can and has been done.

i know its impossible to completely stop any guns coming through, but gun crime is far less of a problem than other crimes. I know it is actually rising at the moment, but i still feel a lot safer than i would in america for example.

You watch to much news. With the exception of American cities that have draconian gun control laws (Washington D.C., Chicago, L.A, etc. ) it's safer to be in the U.S. than the UK.

[FONT=Verdana]guns are bad look its horrible :sniper: you
wont just go past this would you[SIZE=6]

What?

You watch to much news. With the exception of American cities that have draconian gun control laws (Washington D.C., Chicago, L.A, etc. ) it's safer to be in the U.S. than the UK.

well i don't know the exact statistics, but how is that? safer in what way? oh and can i just ask where you're from?!

well i don't know the exact statistics, but how is that? safer in what way? oh and can i just ask where you're from?!

I'm from Illinois, central part but used to live in Chicago.

From 1991 to 1995, crimes against the person in England?s inner cities increased 91 percent. And in the four years from 1997 to 2001, the rate of violent crime more than doubled. Your chances of being mugged in London are now six times greater than in New York. England?s rates of assault, robbery, and burglary are far higher than America?s, and 53 percent of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the U.S., where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police. In a United Nations study of crime in 18 developed nations published in July, England and Wales led the Western world?s crime league, with nearly 55 crimes per 100 people.

London has surpassed the crime rate of New York City. Robberies, in which criminals use or threaten violence, have gone up by 35 percent in the past year. In fact, Chris Fox, vice-president of the British Association of Chief Police Officers, said the rising murder rate put Britain out of line with America, where it has fallen 12%, and France and Germany, where it has dropped 29% and 27% respectively since 1995.

yes they could, although you would have to get mixed up in criminal organisations and such like to do so
And the people that would are the ones that gun controls laws are aimed at anyways, They don't care if they are breaking the law to get the guns because going to use the guns to break the law anyways

And the people that would are the ones that gun controls laws are aimed at anyways, They don't care if they are breaking the law to get the guns because going to use the guns to break the law anyways

would i be correct in thinking that you would rather that guns were legal, so that not so many would be breaking the law?
also (not related to above quote) i've got the impression that in the US people feel they need a gun to protect themselves, and that's why they're so common?

I'm from Illinois, central part but used to live in Chicago.

From 1991 to 1995, crimes against the person in England?s inner cities increased 91 percent. And in the four years from 1997 to 2001, the rate of violent crime more than doubled. Your chances of being mugged in London are now six times greater than in New York. England?s rates of assault, robbery, and burglary are far higher than America?s, and 53 percent of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the U.S., where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police. In a United Nations study of crime in 18 developed nations published in July, England and Wales led the Western world?s crime league, with nearly 55 crimes per 100 people.

London has surpassed the crime rate of New York City. Robberies, in which criminals use or threaten violence, have gone up by 35 percent in the past year. In fact, Chris Fox, vice-president of the British Association of Chief Police Officers, said the rising murder rate put Britain out of line with America, where it has fallen 12%, and France and Germany, where it has dropped 29% and 27% respectively since 1995.

well i can't argue with that if the figures are true. i think it's just that in britain guns have never been so common as they are in the US...i know that there is a rising gun culture in Britain, but everytime we hear of a shooting (not very often, but then again i don't know how often they are reported in the media) people are generally shocked and appalled.

would i be correct in thinking that you would rather that guns were legal, so that not so many would be breaking the law?
Nope not at all. I'm just pointing out that control to stop people who shouldn't have guns from getting them is not going to work, because such people have little to no respect for the law to start with.

also (not related to above quote) i've got the impression that in the US people feel they need a gun to protect themselves, and that's why they're so common?
some do some don't, and such a generalization is fairly close minded IMO

some do some don't, and such a generalization is fairly close minded IMO

hence why i ask the question because i don't actually know! i suppose now guns are so widespread that it'd be impossible to enforce a ban...oh well, we can only dream...

Some have guns to protect themselve
Some have guns to protect others (police for example)
Some have guns just because it is their consitutal right and that is enough for them.
Some have guns to hunt for sport
Some have guns to hunt for food
Some have guns to hunt to protect their lively hood like sheep farmers and grain grower
Some have guns for sport (target shooting)
Some have guns for collections
Some have guns for historical or sentamental value
Some have guns to do harm to others

Really the only ones not affected by gun bans and control legislation are the police, maybe the farmes, and the last group.
The last group is already ignorig the laws for misusing a gun,and they sure as hell will ignore the laws about getting or possessing one.

Some have guns to protect themselve
Some have guns to protect others (police for example)
Some have guns just because it is their consitutal right and that is enough for them.
Some have guns to hunt for sport
Some have guns to hunt for food
Some have guns to hunt to protect their lively hood like sheep farmers and grain grower
Some have guns for sport (target shooting)
Some have guns for collections
Some have guns for historical or sentamental value
Some have guns to do harm to others

Really the only ones not affected by gun bans and control legislation are the police, maybe the farmes, and the last group.
The last group is already ignorig the laws for misusing a gun,and they sure as hell will ignore the laws about getting or possessing one.

you're quite right and i expect that certain parts of the british media have told us a few unnaccurate things on this topic, mostly after the dunblane incident in scotland, when i bloke went into a school and shot dead children and teachers...hence the anti-gun sentiment in britain

Bah guns... you don't really need 'em...

Lets do an examination of the issue.
Why do you want gun control?
- To prevent them from injuring and killing people

Why do guns hurt or kill people?
- accidents and individual intent on causing harm to other

I'll branch here and come back to the second reason

Why do accidents occure?
- humans aren't perfect and/or they are ill informed the situation

Why don't we just educate them then?
- You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. Same with education. If a person doesn't want to learn they won't. They may do the minimum to get through the system, but there is nothing saying they got anything out of it. Forced training and/or classes will not work as gun control

Why not take the guns away?
- It is a person's constitutional right here in the US?

What can we do then?
- inform people, but don't try to make them learn. You have to appeal to them in a way they find acceptable. There are to many to list here.

Back to the individuals that wish to cause harm

Won't taking away guns prevent people causing harm with guns?
- No. If you want a gun to cause harm then you are going to get a gun to cause harm. If you intend to break the law and hurt someone what is going to stop you from breaking the law to get a gun. And even if the person doesn't have a gun they will find something else to hurt you with, a knife, a bat, a car, a rock, etc.

Shouldn't we at least banned exsive guns like assault riffles?
- Again the constitutional issue. They can't banned them, but rather restrict who can get them and they do (or at least try, again criminals don't care) as many states do with all guns.

The point is that feel good follow the law gun control and no guns allowed doesn't hold up, because the people that it is ment to stop will not be stopped by it

you're quite right and i expect that certain parts of the british media have told us a few unnaccurate things on this topic, mostly after the dunblane incident in scotland, when i bloke went into a school and shot dead children and teachers...hence the anti-gun sentiment in britain
The result of an ill informed public. One person, group, or media outlet will point to one very public, very extreme example and call for radical change and the ill informed public will jump through hoops to satisfy that person's or group's agenda
It is like people fearing beef because ONE shipment happened to get contaminated and hundreds got sick and some died. Horrible yes, but cause for a banned on beef no.

I would accept all of that except for the registration part. Registration Lists have to often been a precurser to confiscation to make it comfortable.

Thanks! (Good to see someone else sees it as being reasonable!)

Right *now*, you have a background check and registration if you buy a gun (at least in CT).

How does a list make for a precursor to confiscation? With 40% of America packing, I think this is a non-issue the size of Roe v. Wade being overturned... it is simply not going to happen. :)

Okay...
First:- your first two points conflict
Second:- since licencig is a state issue the federal goverment can make a states have the same licencing laws
Thirst:- your thirds point conflicts with my second point
Fourth:- most state (I would even on a limb to say all) do register guns or atleast require the registration of certain types.
Fifth:- Licensing of a particular types like different types of drivers licenses still fails the point of gun control/regulation legislation. I won't keep the wrong people from obtaining a weapon they can't legal have if the want

1- No, they don't. All 50 states have the same (general) requirements for driving (road test, paper test, eyesight, etc). Everyone still stops at eight sided red signs and drives on the right.
That different states have different minimum ages is not a conflict, no more than the "left on red" rule is in Michigan.
2- Huh? (I don't understand what you typed, please re-type?)
3- Not at all. Or can I not drive at night in Maryland? Or at 115 miles an hour in Montana (legally!), since they have no speed limits on their highways?
4- Right. So now all states would register all guns, just like they do cars and motorcycles.
5- Wrong. It *is* gun control. If you cannot get a license (felon, etc), you can't legally carry a gun. What do you think, that making an AK-47 "banned" means that there aren't any out there on the street, right now?
You can legislate all you want, but THE PEOPLE NOT GETTING LICENSES aren't the ones you're legislating to!

By your argument, I should not have an AK-47, because it is "too much" (or some such thing). In that case, we need to ban Hummers, any TV over 36", and all supersized meals. :)

My point was that guns are just a consumer good and should not be legislated in any other way from other goods.

How does a list make for a precursor to confiscation? With 40% of America packing, I think this is a non-issue the size of Roe v. Wade being overturned... it is simply not going to happen. :)

History.

It did in Canada. The handgun registration law of 1934 is the source being used to confiscate (without compensation) over ½ of the handguns in 2001.

It did in Germany. The 1928 Law on Firearms and Ammunition (before the Nazis came to power) required all firearms to be registered. When Hitler came to power, the existing lists were used for confiscating weapons.

It did in Australia. In 1996, the Australian government confiscated over 660,000 previously legal weapons from their citizens.

It did in California. The 1989 Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act required registration. Due to changing definitions of “assault weapons”, many legal firearms are now being confiscated by the California government.

It did in New York City. In 1967, New York City passed an ordinance requiring a citizen to obtain a permit to own a rifle or shotgun, which would then be registered. In 1991, the city passed a ban on the private possession of some semi-automatic rifles and shotguns and "registered” owners were told that those firearms had to be surrendered, rendered inoperable, or
taken out of the city.

It did in Bermuda, Cuba, Greece, Ireland, Jamaica, and Soviet Georgia as well.

Having a list of gun owners and what they own makes it way too easy for a politician down the track to take them all away.

History.

Thanks!
Ok, maybe my idea for registration is a little utopian. :)

Then again, I will point out that under my idea, the NYC and California roundups would not be possible, any more than it would be for California to ban SUVs. (Sure, they could make emissions really tough, but that'd be about it...)

I can't speak about the Canadian or Australian roundups, as I don't know much about them. But I'd be very interested in reading up on them if you have any good links.

All states have general guide lines along the same idea, but they are implimented and enoforced in wide varrying ways. If you are not old enough in a state to get a drivers licences, you aren't going to be able to transfer your drivers licences for a state that you are old enough in.

States issues are issues not covered or by the consitution or stated in the constitution to be under Federal power.
So gun licenses are a state issue and the federal goverment (the authority that could impose a 50 state wide licensing of guns) can not impose such gun licensing with out a constitutional ammendment

at number 5 you lost me
you basically reiterated my point

As far a supersized meals and hummers are concearned, there are people opposed to those too. and any arguement we have over them just strays from this issue

I favor requiring a gun license, just like you need a driver's license.

That said:
* All 50 states will have the same licensing requirements. That means that Massachusettes and New Hampshire will have to agree on how to license.
* States will still have some latitude. For example, you can get a driver's license at 14 in New Mexico.
* Once I have this license, I can carry my concealed handgun in all 50 states.
* There will be no ban on any specific weapons, just licensing endorsements. As drivers can get CDL, motorcycle, etc, gun licenses will likewise have full automatic and the like.
* Guns will be registered with the states, just like cars are.

...I think this is a fair compromise, really. IMHO, neither side will ever win the gun debate without giving a little.That seems fair, only one modification, that either the test covers all types of guns or the license only covers the guns you've been tested on, cos just knowing how to fire a pistol doesn't mean you can handle a full auto safely.

All states have general guide lines along the same idea, but they are implimented and enoforced in wide varrying ways. If you are not old enough in a state to get a drivers licences, you aren't going to be able to transfer your drivers licences for a state that you are old enough in.

False. My friend *DID* this back in 87', from New Mexico to Connecticut. He was 14.


States issues are issues not covered or by the consitution or stated in the constitution to be under Federal power.

Neither are drivers licenses. That's the whole point. It's a state issue, so let's treat them like cars.


So gun licenses are a state issue and the federal goverment (the authority that could impose a 50 state wide licensing of guns) can not impose such gun licensing with out a constitutional ammendment

Exactly! STATE licenses. I never said Federal. I want to take the feds OUT of the equation. What about the Second Amendment? It's fine. Congress isn't making any laws. :)


at number 5 you lost me
you basically reiterated my point

As far a supersized meals and hummers are concearned, there are people opposed to those too. and any arguement we have over them just strays from this issue

I thought you were saying that these licenses would not keep firearms out of the hands of the wrong people. My point was that that is exactly the point -- they're not designed to do that. All they are designed to do is to legislate legal ownership in a sane, standardized way so we can stop worrying about how much "gun control" to have and get back to law enforcement, which is what we need to do.

Untrue, all that is at issue is a consumer good. A handgun is no more or less dangerous than any of the items I mentioned.

I would accept all of that except for the registration part. Registration Lists have to often been a precurser to confiscation to make it comfortable.
I'd go for a middle ground here. Obviously it has to be recorded somewhere whether or not you've got a license, but I'd accept some kind of safeguard (at your suggestion) to make sure that that doesn't turn into a confiscation register.

That seems fair, only one modification, that either the test covers all types of guns or the license only covers the guns you've been tested on, cos just knowing how to fire a pistol doesn't mean you can handle a full auto safely.

Ideally the license would be for semiautomatic pistols and revolvers, followed by additional "levels" or "endorsements" for Automatics, non-small arms, etc.
Blackpowder would remain unregulated.

I shall ask you this.
If someone really wanted to get a gun and use it in Britian could they?
There is almost nothing you can't do given the right amount of time and money, but I know for sure that I wouldn't know where to start. As for use it, I dunno, it'd be tricky. If you're talking about getting a gun and capping one person, then quite possibly. If you mean getting a gun, killing someone and staying at large (and keeping the gun), it seems unlikely. They deploy special teams within minutes of reports of gunfire, its an uncommon enough occurance that it gets taken damn seriously and dealt with very fast.

Forced training and/or classes will not work as gun control
On what basis do you say this? Have there been studies? Past examples? I don't think that merely trying to logic through it is gonna lead you to the right answer here.

Ideally the license would be for semiautomatic pistols and revolvers, followed by additional "levels" or "endorsements" for Automatics, non-small arms, etc.
Blackpowder would remain unregulated.
Makes sense so far as I can see.

Why do you conservatives always leave out the part about the need for a well regulated milita?

I hate to enter into this argument, but loads of liberal scholars (Lawrence Tribe, for one) are of the opinion that the Second Amendment refers to an individual citizens right o bear arms.

I hate to enter into this argument, but loads of liberal scholars (Lawrence Tribe, for one) are of the opinion that the Second Amendment refers to an individual citizens right o bear arms.
I think that's probably right, but I also think that, in terms of their intentions, the composers of the 2nd amendment were very clear: a well regulated militia

"When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." See the point here is, criminals do NOT obey laws, hence the label of criminal. They tend to operate outside permits and backround checks.

Legal possession of fully automatic weapons already exists, but they are more than heavily regulated by the BATF.

I don't think some of you understand. Americans are not a paranoid people, hell, not all of us have guns. Concealed and open(only in some places) carry are like wearing a seat belt, it may never come to a situation in which it is required, but what if it does? Where would you be then? My father has applied for a CCW in the past 3 states we've lived in, it has never come to him having to use his pistol. But if we were in any danger at any time he would have been the hero of my day, nay my life.

I can understand where you dirty hippies, ahem, liberals come from. Guns are tools used to hurt, injure, and kill. But remember this, you only hear the stories about criminals using guns. What you don't hear about is average Joe Gunowner. He gets confronted by an armed man on his way out of his law firm after a late night, he reacts quickly and draws his pistol. Mugger realizes his grave mistake and takes off, no one is hurt. The incident is reported to the poice the next morning and thats the end of it. Then you get the story I posted several pages back about the guy that took the lives of gang members, hardcore criminals that aimed to kidnap and quite possibly kill him and his date. Guns can save lives too, and they do all the time.

The main reason people don't warm up to guns like I have is because they weren't raised to understand them beyond projectile launchers. I never plan to use my rifle for malice, it is an object of entertainment. Those raised in what is known as a "gun culture" come to revere firearms, something to be respected and treated with care. One's stance on all political issues depends entirely on their raising.

I can almost guarantee that most of this is irrelevant to this thread. Oh well.

Thanks!
Ok, maybe my idea for registration is a little utopian. :)

Then again, I will point out that under my idea, the NYC and California roundups would not be possible, any more than it would be for California to ban SUVs. (Sure, they could make emissions really tough, but that'd be about it...)

I can't speak about the Canadian or Australian roundups, as I don't know much about them. But I'd be very interested in reading up on them if you have any good links.

I don't know any web links off the top of my head, the source had paper references only, sorry.

I think that's probably right, but I also think that, in terms of their intentions, the composers of the 2nd amendment were very clear: a well regulated militia

In modern language/usage it would read: A well-armed/equipped citizenry is necessary for a free nation therefore the right to own and carry firearms shall not be infringed.

Regulated in late 18th century usage meant equipped.

The militia was defined as any male able to carry a firearm in the defense of thier nation.

OT, As I stated earlier, I would not support a gun registration list but would accept (albiet grudgingly) a database w/ Name, address, Pass/fail and date of test.

I am for classes but against registering any weapons other then full auto.And for those of you out there who feel we should ban military style assault weapons. All fire arms are assault weapons. And the best way to ensure that a government does not oppress its people is to arm those people. Not for revolt but for the protection of liberty. The tyrants of th epast disarmed their citizens before they ran rough shod over them.Of course they were disarmed for their own good.And do not think for a minute that it has not ever been thought of in the U.S.A. ...I served for 5yrs in the 82nd airborne under the Clinton Regime and we were instructed in how to best disarm the people of America through intimidation if need be. Now fortunately most soldiers would have disobeyed but if we had been given the order American people would have had resources to fight back.And what good reason would there be for the government want to disarm the populace? And remember only the law abiding people would ever register their weapons.

The answer is "No."

What do you not understand about "The right to bear Arms?" I want to ask that to all moron liberals.

As a liberal Canadian I love going to the States and bare my arms, but they usually get sunburnt. :p

Actually we do have hunting guns in the house but they're under lock and key. We don't need them to defend our home so there's no need to keep them loaded or anything like that. Personally I completely support our governmet in regualting weapons. I want to be sure my kids are safe.

The problem with America is not that you "have the right to bear arms" But that out of the 350 million of you the mentally unstable ones who don't have the capacity to use then responsibly end up killing people unnecessarily.

Hence I have no problem with you wanting to bear arms for whatever reason, I love guns they are so much fun when used responsibly for recreational purposes. However I also realise the reasons for having Gun control. No way in hell is everyone as sensible as you or I may be, and the only way to make sure gun usage is safe for everyone is to have controls in place so that mentally unstable people don't get their hands on them. This in no way stops you from owning whatever kinda of gun you want or as many as you want, it simply stops you owning them if your a psycho and are going to go on a killing spree.

Gun control = good ..
Unrestricted guns floating round in the hands of gangs and mentally unstable psychos = a very very bad thing.

The problem with America is not that you "have the right to bear arms" But that out of the 350 million of you the mentally unstable ones who don't have the capacity to use then responsibly end up killing people unnecessarily.

Hence I have no problem with you wanting to bear arms for whatever reason, I love guns they are so much fun when used responsibly for recreational purposes. However I also realise the reasons for having Gun control. No way in hell is everyone as sensible as you or I may be, and the only way to make sure gun usage is safe for everyone is to have controls in place so that mentally unstable people don't get their hands on them. This in no way stops you from owning whatever kinda of gun you want or as many as you want, it simply stops you owning them if your a psycho and are going to go on a killing spree.

Gun control = good ..
Unrestricted guns floating round in the hands of gangs and mentally unstable psychos = a very very bad thing.


Gun Control or Crime Control?

What is your method of stopping Psychos'?

referring to force educatino doesn't work
On what basis do you say this? Have there been studies? Past examples? I don't think that merely trying to logic through it is gonna lead you to the right answer here.
My basis is the current state of our education system. Each year there are thousand that "graduate" high school here with no real education. They have cheat, done as little work as possible, or just slipped between crack with social promotion or simiply dropped out.

Again the old saying
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

There is almost nothing you can't do given the right amount of time and money, but I know for sure that I wouldn't know where to start. As for use it, I dunno, it'd be tricky. If you're talking about getting a gun and capping one person, then quite possibly. If you mean getting a gun, killing someone and staying at large (and keeping the gun), it seems unlikely. They deploy special teams within minutes of reports of gunfire, its an uncommon enough occurance that it gets taken damn seriously and dealt with very fast.

Exactly.
And I would argue (not here though it is off topic) that with a well thought out execution (the use of the fire arm not the killing of a criminal) one could use a fire arm and then evade and escape capture long enough to either move out of the area of scrutiny.


The problem with America is not that you "have the right to bear arms" But that out of the 350 million of you the mentally unstable ones who don't have the capacity to use then responsibly end up killing people unnecessarily.

Hence I have no problem with you wanting to bear arms for whatever reason, I love guns they are so much fun when used responsibly for recreational purposes. However I also realise the reasons for having Gun control. No way in hell is everyone as sensible as you or I may be, and the only way to make sure gun usage is safe for everyone is to have controls in place so that mentally unstable people don't get their hands on them. This in no way stops you from owning whatever kinda of gun you want or as many as you want, it simply stops you owning them if your a psycho and are going to go on a killing spree.

Gun control = good ..
Unrestricted guns floating round in the hands of gangs and mentally unstable psychos = a very very bad thing.

unstable psychos... do you think they will obey the law when they are getting a gun??

You all (those of you trying to define this perfect little gun control/legistation) seem to be missing one small yet agrument breaking point.
The people you are trying to prevent from getting and/or using firearms to harm or kill others don't follow the law. They don't care and won't give it a second thought to break one law to go and break another. If I have the desire to come into your home and shot you, I'm not going to be stopped because the guy at the gun store say "nope you can have a gun, because ...". I'll just fined a way to get a gun else where illegally, then find you and shot you.
If you can't see this point or want to keep side stepping this point then we all just need to quit this thread.

Wrapping it up.
You can't keep CRIMINALS from getting guns, unless you destroy everyone of them on earth then erase every memory of them from every mind on earth and then lobotimize everyone to not try an invent things.

If you want to try and prevent accidental gun deaths, then lets start from there.


**********************************************************

Spoffin -
this was your thread, you started it.
Shall we redirect it and start from the point of how do we try to prevent accidental gun related deaths and way from keeping guns out of the hands of those that would/will abuse them?
LOKM

"When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." See the point here is, criminals do NOT obey laws, hence the label of criminal. They tend to operate outside permits and backround checks.And seeing as I've said forty or fifty times in this thread, this isn't a measure about criminals, its a measure about unsafe gun users.

"I can understand where you dirty hippies, ahem, liberals come from. Don't flame.

Guns are tools used to hurt, injure, and kill. But remember this, you only hear the stories about criminals using guns. What you don't hear about is average Joe Gunowner. He gets confronted by an armed man on his way out of his law firm after a late night, he reacts quickly and draws his pistol. Mugger realizes his grave mistake and takes off, no one is hurt.
Don't like 40% of americans own guns or something? Do you really think that 51% (most) of those people have actually used them to protect them from crime, especially given all those people here who've been saying that where they live, everyone has guns and theres no crime?

In modern language/usage it would read: A well-armed/equipped citizenry is necessary for a free nation therefore the right to own and carry firearms shall not be infringed.

Regulated in late 18th century usage meant equipped.

The militia was defined as any male able to carry a firearm in the defense of thier nation.

OT, As I stated earlier, I would not support a gun registration list but would accept (albiet grudgingly) a database w/ Name, address, Pass/fail and date of test.
Well, I don't know about old definitions of regulated, however clearly, if they're trying to pass an amendment to protect the security of the state, they want people who are able to defend the state, IE: people who are able to use armaments competantly.

I agree broadly about your database suggestions, I'm not exactly in favour of big brother tabs being kept on citizens. I only suspend my judgement on the specifics cos I don't know what kind of measures are necessary for security (both keeping the database to maintain protection against mis-identification and for keeping it small enough that it won't keep too much info on private citizens.), and I'm gonna defer to experts on that.

I am for classes but against registering any weapons other then full auto.And for those of you out there who feel we should ban military style assault weapons. All fire arms are assault weapons. And the best way to ensure that a government does not oppress its people is to arm those people. Not for revolt but for the protection of liberty. The tyrants of th epast disarmed their citizens before they ran rough shod over them.Of course they were disarmed for their own good.And do not think for a minute that it has not ever been thought of in the U.S.A. ...I served for 5yrs in the 82nd airborne under the Clinton Regime and we were instructed in how to best disarm the people of America through intimidation if need be. Now fortunately most soldiers would have disobeyed but if we had been given the order American people would have had resources to fight back.And what good reason would there be for the government want to disarm the populace? And remember only the law abiding people would ever register their weapons.Registering weapons, under this plan, would only be so that we could be sure that people were licensed, not simply for registration as an end in itself. And yes, as seemingly everybody has pointed out, criminals would still be able to get their hands on guns. But that's not what this proposal is about.

Spoffin -
this was your thread, you started it.
Shall we redirect it and start from the point of how do we try to prevent accidental gun related deaths and way from keeping guns out of the hands of those that would/will abuse them?
LOKM
Absolutely.

Absolutely.

In the U.S., it is mandatory to take a constitution class in High School. Howabout an elective safety course?

How about this: anyone can create a private militia, that's the point of them: military organizations which cannot be banned by the government unless they do something illegal. Anyone can form a one-man militia, and therefore the second amendment applies to every citizen.

As for safety, I would support elective, or better yet, mandatory gun training classes in high school. I think a lot of the fear of guns as evil is based on the complete absence of experience with them; as was mentioned at the beginning of the thread, cars can be lethal weapons, but no one who has driven a car is overly concerned because they understand how a car works.

A lot of conservatives become really angry about the second amendment, because it has been blatantly violated by the court systems and gun control laws. Most of all, if liberals ever go too far, you will hear the phrase "constitutional convention" spring up; after all, the constitution was nothing more than a successful revolution, and if the government gets too evil again, the people can (if well armed) at any time dissolve the government and make another for themselves. That is why we so strongly support guns; they are an implicit check on even the idea of tyranny. Well, tyranny and crime, of course. Even criminals understand that it's dangerous to steal from anyone who might have a concealed carry permit.

In the U.S., it is mandatory to take a constitution class in High School. Howabout an elective safety course?Or some kind of after school club?

Or some kind of after school club?

That would be good too. Some schools have student NRA clubs.

What you were trying to do was paint me as a hipocrite, for claiming to be trying to save lives but in fact neglecting a number of more important areas. And you'd be right, if it were the case that I was neglecting these areas. The fact is, I am merely ignoring them for the purposes of this thread, not ignoring them overall.

1. I didn't "swap annalogies on you." They were two totally seperate thought processes.
2. I was not trying to "paint you as a hypocrit," but hey if you want to tell ME what MY objective was and what I was thinking instead of actually presenting convincing evidence to support your argument against my statements, that's fine with me.

1. I didn't "swap annalogies on you." They were two totally seperate thought processes.
2. I was not trying to "paint you as a hypocrit," but hey if you want to tell ME what MY objective was and what I was thinking instead of actually presenting convincing evidence to support your argument against my statements, that's fine with me.
They were linked thought processes, point, counterpoint, counter-counterpoint.

As for 2, now you're either being facetious or exceptionally stupid. I have presented convincing evidence to support my arguement, but again, you do the same thing as before, and try to show my focus was on one thing when actually, it was on that AND the main point.